BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM

(DISTRICT FORUM)

NORTH TRIPURA : KAILASHAHAR

 

   C A S E   NO. C. C. 17/11

 

SHRI BHAKTA CHARAN DAS,

Son of Lt. Bhaikunta Das,

Of Dakkhin Dhumacherra,

P.S. Dhumacherra,

Longtharai Valley, Dhalai.

                                                   …......COMPLAINANT.            

           V E R S U S

 

1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

    Represented by The Branch Manager,

    Dharmanagar,

     District-North Tripura.

                                                                                                                                                              ….....OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                     

               P R E S E N T

    

                   SHRI P. K. DUTTA

                  PRESIDENT

                    DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM

                        UNAKOTI DISTRICT::KAILASHAHAR

               A N D 

                 SMTI. S. DEB, MEMBER

                  SHRI P. SINHA, MEMBER

                  C O U N S E L

 

                      For the complainant : Shri C. Bhattacharjee, Advocate                      

  For the OP               : Sri S. Deb, Advocate

                                     

                  ORIGINAL DATE OF INSTITUTION :12-07-2017

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON :10.01.2019

 

                        J U D G M E N T

 

This is a complaint presented by the complainant Shri Bhakta Charan Das, U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party praying for getting the repairing cost of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 83,413/- (Rupees eighty three thousand four hundred thirteen only ) from the opposite party. 

 

2. The case of the complainant, as narrated in the complaint petition, is that he is the owner of the Commander jeep vehicle bearing no. TR-04-2032 and the said vehicle was insured with the OP Vide Policy No. 322790/31/2014/153 valid for the period from 11.04.2013 to 10.04.2014. On 13.01.2014 at about 8 am when the driver of the vehicle, namely, Sri Gobinda Das was proceeding with the said vehicle from Chailengta market to Lalcherra and reached near Chailengta Duk Bunglow, a vehicle bearing no. TR-01-B-1117 belonging to 8th BN. of TSR driven by one Subrata Chowdhury which was coming from opposite direction forcefully dashed the vehicle of the complainant, for which the vehicle fell down in a lunga and it was badly damaged. Upon this accident, the complainant lodged an ejahar before the Chailengtra Police Station which was registered as CLT PS Case No. 03 of 2014, U/Ss 278/338 of IPC. Thereafter, the vehicle was seized by the Police and was released by the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Longtharai Valley. Thereafter, the complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop after informing the opposite party. In the workshop of Chandan Auto Mobiles and Baba Steel & Baba Grill Industry, Jamircharra, Manughat, Dhalai, the vehicle was repaired and for the purpose of repairing the complainant had to incur Rs. 83,413/-(Rupees eighty three thousand four hundred thirteen only) and the same was also informed to the insurance company, but the OP-insurance company did not make payment of the repairing cost. It is further contended in the complaint petition that the complainant went to the Office of the OP at Dharmanagar on several dates for getting payment of the insured claim, but in vain and thus, the OP is in gross deficiency for not making payment of the repairing cost incurred by the complainant. It is also contended in the petition that the cause of action arose on 13.01.2014 when the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged. Ultimately, the complainant prayed for getting a direction from this Forum to get an amount of Rs. 83,413/-(Rupees eighty three thousand four hundred thirteen only) from the opposite party along with interest.

 

3. OP also appeared and submitted written statement stating, inter-alia, that the complainant is not the owner of the vehicle and no accident was occurred on 13.01.2014 and as such, there is no question of damage of the vehicle of the complainant since the OP was not given any information about the accident or the alleged story of repairing of the vehicle. It is further stated in the written statement that the OP has failed to trace out the insurance policy issued by the OP in respect of the vehicle of the complainant. It is a fabricated story just to gain wrongful amount from the OP and as such, the OP has prayed to dismiss the complaint preferred by the complainant.

 

4. The complainant has adduced his evidence as PW 1 recapitulating the facts as narrated by him in his complaint petition and as such, for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition evidence of the complainant is not discussed. However, during his re-examination the complainant has exhibited the following documents:-

I) Xerox copies of bills and vouchers relating to repairing and purchase of spare parts of his vehicle bearing no. TR-04-2032 and in comparison with the original. The same is marked Exhibit 1/1 and 1/10.

II) Certified copy of FIR, seizure lists, injury report and charge sheet in connection with Chailengta PS Case No. 3 of 2014 (total 18 sheets), marked Exhibit 2/1 to 2/18.

 

5. The complainant was cross examined on behalf of the insurance company. During cross examination complainant stated that there was head on collision in between two vehicles and driver of his vehicle was also charge sheeted. In cross he further stated that his vehicle was also seized by the Police after the accident. The complainant also admitted during cross that his vehicle was inspected by the MVI, but he has not submitted the MVI Report regarding damage of his vehicle and that he has not specifically mentioned the articles which were damaged out of the accident.

No evidence was led by the OP.

 

6. Now, the point required to be determined in this case is whether the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 83,413/-(Rupees eighty three thousand four hundred thirteen only) from the opposite party for repairing cost of the vehicle.

 DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

7. According to the complainant his vehicle met with an accident on 13.01.2014 and that his vehicle was insured with the OP-insurance company Vide Policy No. 322790/31/2014/153 for the period from 11.04.2013 to 10.04.2014 covering the date of accident, but the complainant did not produce the insurance certificate showing that on the date of accident his vehicle was insured with the OP and on the contrary it is specifically contended by the OP that they failed to trace out the certificate of insurance alleged to be issued by them in respect of the vehicle of the complainant bearing no. TR-04-2032. In the record only a xerox copy of insurance certificate issued by the OP United India Insurance Company limited, Dharmanagar Branch, Dharmanagar is found, but that certificate is for the period from 25.04.2014 to 24.04.2015. Therefore, it cannot be said with emphasis that on the date of accident on 13.01.2014 the vehicle of the complainant was at all insured with the OP. Further, in the cross examination by the OP the complainant stated that his vehicle was inspected by the MVI after the accident, but he has not submitted the copy of such inspection. Again, the complainant has also stated in his examination-in-chief on affidavit as well as in the complaint petition that after the accident information was given to the OP-insurance company, but since the OP denied to have received any information of accident from the part of the complainant and as the complainant also did not submit any paper showing that information was passed to the OP-insurance company about the accident involving damage of the vehicle, it is hard to believe that complainant at all gave information to the OP-insurance company about the accident of his vehicle. It is a fact that on investigation Police submitted charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle bearing no. TR-01-B-1117, which allegedly dashed the vehicle of the complainant causing accident, but the complainant could not comply with all requirements regarding validity of the insurance policy, due information of accident to the OP-insurance company for getting compensation from the OP. Mere submission of bills/voucher regarding repairing of the vehicle without complying the necessary provisions is not enough to get compensation from the OP. Consequently, the complaint petition preferred by the complainant for getting compensation from the OP in respect of repairing cost of the vehicle is dismissed being devoid of merit. 

The point is decided accordingly.

                                     ORDER

                                                 

8. In the result, it is ordered that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation from the opposite party towards repairing cost of the vehicle.

The case stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly. 

 

9. Furnish copy of this judgment to the complainant and O.P free of cost through their respective learned counsels. 

                ANNOUNCED

                                                                         

              (P.K. DUTTA)

                                                                           PRESIDENT 

 (S. DEB)            (P. SINHA) 

MEMBER            MEMBER